Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7614 times:

A recent report shows the lift requirements for the KC-X with regards to strategic cargo / passenger transport might be outdated taking into consideration current use of the cargo fleet.

Rough airfield deployment of the C-17 and C130J seems to be very limited in day to day operation. They can do it but it hardly happens in e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan. Tanker capasity is mainly hard pressed during the first month of an operation.

http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/...030708/Bolkcom_Testimony030707.pdf

Page 6 of 21

Because DoD’s last tanker requirements study is outdated, and because subsequent
analyses failed, for many, to provide increased insight into tanker and airlift requirements,
many significant acquisition and force structure questions remain unclear. One question was
alluded to earlier in this testimony: “how much airlift capability should the aerial refueling
fleet provide?”

It appears that some within DoD believe that the KC-X program should provide for
more airlift capability than it currently does. Last spring, DoD’s top military transportation
commanders expressed a strong preference for a multi-role tanker. Gen. Norton Schwartz,
Commander U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) testified that

"What we need is a multi-mission tanker that can do both boom and basket refueling, that
can do passenger lift, some cargo lift, and have defensive systems that allow the airplane
to go wherever we need to take it....if we’re going to war with Iran or Korea or over
Taiwan or a major scenario, the first 15 to 30 days are going to be air refueling intensive.
But what I’m talking about is the global war on terrorism, sir, for the next 15 or 20 or 25
years. That is not an air refueling intensive scenario and that’s why a multi-mission
airplane to me makes sense.14"

The Defense Science Board agreed with Gen. Schwartz’s opinion on refueling
requirements and the availability of tankers to provide airlift missions. “The major driver for
future aerial refueling needs is the number and type of nearly simultaneous “major”
operations. Demands on aerial refueling are particularly stressed when time is of the essence
for the mission and when local infrastructure is immature.”15

The amount of airlift ultimately to be provided by the tanker fleet could have important
implications for other programs under this subcommittee’s purview.

The report further descripes the strategic and tactical capabilities / choices that have to made.

The argument that a tanker always was a tanker, is a tanker and tanker can only ever be a tanker seems to be loosing ground. IMO this could have influence on the tanker competition to be finalized this fall and not only on the tanker competition.



81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7597 times:

This article underscores Northrup-Grummans appeal that the RFP was not fair, as it discounted lift capacity in favor of a moe specialized tanker. A multi roll tanker makes more sense from a fleet capitalization view and as a tax payer.

Gen. Schwatz has pretty much summed it up, that we need lift in addition to tankerage. As an x mtc guy, we deployed the Wing with all of our test eqiupment and spares, palleted onto the 135Qs. This was a Cold War scenario with a fighter drag across the pond to RAF Mildenhall. As the USAF is asking for both lift and tankerage, a mixed fleet of KC-30s and 767s would work.

From the article, I didn't know taht we were renting AN-124 time, over 100 million dollars in FY06. That was one frame we could have bought.



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7581 times:



Once again, Kessje tries valiantly to push a boulder up a very steep hill.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7551 times:

The point here is that the lift capacity of the tanker is less important than the tanking.....and the more booms in the sky the better off we are. The lift capacity of the 767 is not significantly enough less than the 330 when comparing useful loads to justify the smaller number of airframes we'd be able to buy with the same money.

We need more booms and drogues in the air.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7479 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7501 times:

Ah well, since we are on this again let me play along. Since these "new" requirements show that the lift requirement is more important, I think both Boeing and Airbus need to re-evaluate their choices of a/c. Obviously, in this new environment the B-767 is outmoded, ditto the A330. Boeing needs to up its a/c to the B-777 and the B-747 as a mix fleet to replace the KC-707 and the KC-10, both provide more lift and more "gas" than any other selection available.
Airbus now has to match that with the KC-340 and the KC-380, both would have the advantage over one of Boeings - KC-777 - a twin versus the tried and proven 4 engine tankers the US-Airforce already uses.

Both OEM's would be able to provide a/c immediately as there are numerous B-777's and B-747 being made obsolete by the A-350 and the A-380. Airbus has the production capacity to produce A-340's and A-380's on short notice so the air force would not have a long wait. I can see the various PR flyers now, Boeing, tried and true a/c, Airbus newer more modern a/c, let get this show on the road.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7484 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 4):
Boeing needs to up its a/c to the B-777 and the B-747 as a mix fleet to replace the KC-707 and the KC-10

I'd say that the 777 would be an excellent replacement for the KC-10 fleet once it's retired....I'd not mind seeing the 777 ordered as long as it did not reduce the overall number of booms in the air once the entire fleet is ordered.

The lift capacity of the tanker fleet is not as important as one thinks if the fact that tanking is the tanker fleets number one job. Lift is secondary. We can charter or conscript lift if necessary. We've got a huge US flagged civilian fleet for that sort of lift (it's different, totally, from the strategic and tactical lift capability upon which we need to improve) when we need surge capacity and it's a very well proven system. FedEx, UPS and the passenger fleets have all the airlift we could possibly need for cargo and passengers......none of them, however, can provide refuelling capability.

We need more booms in the air.......talking about cargo capacity is a dodge designed to distract people from the real mission. The 767 is well capable of carrying cargo......the A330 is well capable of carrying cargo....we can buy more KC767s than KC30s for the same money. More refuelling missions can be handled with the KC767.

Are there really any more questions?



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4936 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7470 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Rough airfield deployment of the C-17 and C130J seems to be very limited in day to day operation.

If C-17 and C-130J deployment seems limited to you, how can you expect the civilian-derived KC-X to do more rough airfield deployments? Or by "rough" did you mean "estimated"?

If more airlift is needed, then more C-17s and C-130Js should be funded.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7462 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 5):
We need more booms in the air.......talking about cargo capacity is a dodge designed to distract people from the real mission. The 767 is well capable of carrying cargo......the A330 is well capable of carrying cargo....we can buy more KC767s than KC30s for the same money. More refuelling missions can be handled with the KC767.

Are there really any more questions?

there shouldn't be, unless you work for Airbus or Northrop Grumman and are desperately trying to sell the American public more airplane than is needed for the mission.

My nephew is a KC-135 boom operator. He tells me they never tank their full fuel load, and as far as cargo goes, he's been all over the world and never carried a full non-fuel cargo load.

Simply put, we need more booms in the air, not larger fuel tanks or cargo decks.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 6):
If C-17 and C-130J deployment seems limited to you, how can you expect the civilian-derived KC-X to do more rough airfield deployments? Or by "rough" did you mean "estimated"?

If more airlift is needed, then more C-17s and C-130Js should be funded.

ÊÊ

[Edited 2007-07-14 17:52:52]

User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7373 times:

Hey Halls120,

I think a reasonable case for a mixed fleet can be made. From reading the article, the airlift requirement is not well defined by the USAF or the DoD, or the one that they have done is obsolete. Also in the article the researcher guestimating acquisition costs, the KC-30 is comparable in price (not the DoD really ever cared a rat's ass about price. You don't have to go far for example, Osprey, DIVAD, etc.).

A mixed fleet will add flexibility to our airlift capability if the tanker frames are close in costs. Loading troops on a C5A (been there) or a C-141A (been there also, I guess I am getting up there in years) is a waste of airframe capability. Having additional lift would add flexibility to deploy spares, test equipment, etc in a Tanker Task Force.

Now, my experience is obsolete, I am an old SAC weenie back when it was, TAC, MAC, the American Toy Company, etc. When we deployed, cargo was stacked 6 feet in front of us for the lenght of the Q model. After a stop at Dover, we picked up more tankers and flew a fighter drag across the pound, impressive sight, 6 tankers and a full squadron of F-4s. My point here is that this is anecdotal evidence. And a boomer today can only provide anecdotal evidence also. Fuel/cargo loads may be the result of MAJOCM policy, bickering lack of coordination or many things.

As the contract is to be awarded this fall, the topic is current. As a tax paying Reaganite Vet, I want the military to be the most capable it can be. The EU buys into our major weapons programs and I don't have a problem if we buy theirs. (I'm definitely not insinuating you are, just a comment.)



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7368 times:

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 8):
Now, my experience is obsolete, I am an old SAC weenie back when it was, TAC, MAC, the American Toy Company, etc. When we deployed, cargo was stacked 6 feet in front of us for the lenght of the Q model. After a stop at Dover, we picked up more tankers and flew a fighter drag across the pound, impressive sight, 6 tankers and a full squadron of F-4s. My point here is that this is anecdotal evidence. And a boomer today can only provide anecdotal evidence also. Fuel/cargo loads may be the result of MAJOCM policy, bickering lack of coordination or many things.

Just about every person who has posted on this topic who is currently flying for the US military today has said the same thing my nephew has said - they don't need more fuel capacity per aircraft, they need more aircraft. Anecdotal it might be, but why should we believe the testimony of one CRS researcher? What are his qualifications?

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 8):
As the contract is to be awarded this fall, the topic is current. As a tax paying Reaganite Vet, I want the military to be the most capable it can be. The EU buys into our major weapons programs and I don't have a problem if we buy theirs.

I guess you missed the threads on the EU balking on buying a C-17 for NATO, eh?

I agree that we should buy the best available. But buying the best doesn't mean we need to buy more than we need. If the KC-767 is cheaper than the KC-30, and it satisfies what the AF needs, to me it's a no brainer. You take the system that gives you more bang for the buck. And in the case of tankers, I believe we need more airframes, not more capacity.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7319 times:

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 8):
I want the military to be the most capable it can be. The EU buys into our major weapons programs and I don't have a problem if we buy theirs. (I'm definitely not insinuating you are, just a comment.)

Dude.....speaking as another Reagan era (and Bush 41/Clinton) vet I'd have to say I've got zero problems with foreign weapons systems (Harrier/Penguin/Beretta/Benelli and so on) if it's the right piece of equipment for the job that needs doing.

If the KC-30 was the right piece of equipment I'd say so and be bitching that Boeing hadn't put forward the 777 as the solution....but it's not. I outlined how we can achieve the surge cargo capacity we need for both passengers and regular sized cargo both during peacetime and wartime (US flagged charter operators such as World and North American plus the cargo carriers), as well as that which they cannot provide. The limited capabilities of operations such as Omega could not nearly enough provide us with more booms or drogues in the air to supply surge deployments or sustained combat operations once the older KCs wear out.

We need the outsized cargo planes and the KC767.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7311 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10):

We need the outsized cargo planes and the KC767.

Really that is what it comes down to. Additionally any cargo or people you can move in a KC-30 you can move more cheaply in a contracted situation even if you do not activate the reserve fleets. The real problem is that in an operational situation the tankers are likely not going to where the majority of the cargo is needed.

They use the WOT as an example but it is flawed. The vast majority of the troops are in Iraq proper as is the vast majority of the cargo demand. However tankers do not really go to Iraq so they can't really haul cargo there.


User currently offlineXt6wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3424 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7289 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 11):
Additionally any cargo or people you can move in a KC-30 you can move more cheaply in a contracted situation even if you do not activate the reserve fleets

wonder how cheap you can get those old 742F or 743F out of storage and polished up again..... Even better if you use those, you never have to use your TANKER as a CARGO plane,

The idea that you would want to use your tankers for cargo lift is very strange. There isn't enough frames right now to cover what the USAF wants done on the tanker side, so you want to remove frames from tanker use to haul cargo? I could see it if you had a small airforce and didn't conduct that much in the way of operations around the globe, but the USAF isn't small, and they are always sending warplanes somewhere, all which take tankers to get where they are going.

It boggles the mind that people keep harping about how much better the KC30 is than the KC767 is for cargo, yet ignore the fact the USAF at this time CAN'T spare the tanker fleet for cargo duty. Or that if it was important, the KC777 is almost the same footprint as the KC30 and dwarfs the KC30 in ability. Price per frame is higher sure... but oh wait some select people here keep arguing that "ability" > price. Just imagine a 747 based tanker.. Most capability per dollar bar none. What more could you want, massive speed, massive payloads, massive range... Its all there. Likely would only be a hair more than a KC777 a frame too. So clearly based on these "new" requirements the only sane solution is for the USAF to ignore the KC30 and KC767 and go straight for a 748 based tanker.


User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7285 times:

Guys, I am open to rational discussion. I am not dogmatic is suggesting anything, but the diferent sides is what is interesting. I'm not advocating a specific platform.

There are guys insdie the USAF that have mentioned combined cargo/tanker capacity. This is where the discusion should be. How far off is Gerneral Schultz then? He has done this all of his life, as a professional airman. Damn, I wish he would post his view. hehe.  Smile

Cheers, AS



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7271 times:

Beat this. Please.




Big version: Width: 768 Height: 1024 File size: 233kb
Dead horse


Quoting Halls120 (Reply 2):


Once again, Kessje tries valiantly to push a boulder up a very steep hill.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7262 times:

You have to remember who General Schultz is working for. His command is responsible for moving things around so he is proposing what from his point of view is the simplest solution. There are many other voices to be heard however. Primarily Air Combat Command, though no longer responsible for administering the tankers are among the big users of them and their voice will be heard. In addition you have the various theater commanders who will actual decide how these things are employed.

What the General is arguing is that basically a multi-role capability is important in a tanker. On the face of it that is not really earth shattering news. The question is what level of capability can you use and how much are you willing to pay for it. If you budget is unlimited then certainly it makes the most sense to buy the biggest best thing you can get. However this is probably not the case.

I maintain what I have said before, and what a lot of independent analyst in the business have been saying for a while, the KC-30 is great if you are only buying a few of them and do not have a large transport fleet otherwise at hand. When you are buying in the hundreds you get far better value by getting more 767's for a given cost.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7256 times:

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 13):
Guys, I am open to rational discussion. I am not dogmatic is suggesting anything, but the diferent sides is what is interesting. I'm not advocating a specific platform.

They're good points for discussion, but the return point sort of answers the logic of the situation. The aggravation comes when certain posters seem to simply be stirring the pot with points that have been refuted effectively before simply because they favor one manufactor over another.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 14):
Beat this. Please.

Didn't someone wake up with that in their bed?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 14):
Once again, Kessje tries valiantly to push a boulder up a very steep hill.

I was wondering how you spell Sysiphus in Dutch......



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7252 times:

You mean the A-330's going to still win the tanker thing? I thought the 767 won!??

Andrea K


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3424 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7220 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 17):
You mean the A-330's going to still win the tanker thing? I thought the 767 won!??

They still have to dot the i's and cross the t's, but unless Boeing was silly enough to charge more per frame than the KC30, the KC767 is going to win.

Even if they did, Our politicians currently hate the french more than they hate Boeing so.... "Freedom Fries".... lord. what idiots.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7184 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Tanker capasity is mainly hard pressed during the first month of an operation.

Where did that come from? Tankers are still flying combat missions in both Afghanistan and Iraq today. They are also used to shuttle C-17s, Fighters and Bombers back and forth to the US.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 1):
Gen. Schwatz has pretty much summed it up, that we need lift in addition to tankerage.

Gen. Schwatz is a US Army General. His job is to move people and equipment. He is less interested in the tanker requirements in-theater, or the air bridges.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 1):
As the USAF is asking for both lift and tankerage, a mixed fleet of KC-30s and 767s would work.

??? No, it will not. Tanker requirements are always needed, airlift surges are temporary. That is what the CRAF and chartered airliners are for, and that is a lot cheaper than buying two different types of airplane, or having excess airplane capability laying around.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 7):
My nephew is a KC-135 boom operator. He tells me they never tank their full fuel load, and as far as cargo goes, he's been all over the world and never carried a full non-fuel cargo load.

Simply put, we need more booms in the air, not larger fuel tanks or cargo decks.

Being an "Old Boom" myself, I confirm what your nephew is saying. The only time we ever loaded full fuel tanks in the KC-135 (up to our max ramp gross weight of 301,600lbs, or available runway lenght, for the KC-135A/Q) was on on alert for the SAC EWO missions.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 8):
A mixed fleet will add flexibility to our airlift capability if the tanker frames are close in costs. Loading troops on a C5A (been there) or a C-141A (been there also, I guess I am getting up there in years) is a waste of airframe capability. Having additional lift would add flexibility to deploy spares, test equipment, etc in a Tanker Task Force.

Now, my experience is obsolete, I am an old SAC weenie back when it was, TAC, MAC, the American Toy Company, etc. When we deployed, cargo was stacked 6 feet in front of us for the lenght of the Q model. After a stop at Dover, we picked up more tankers and flew a fighter drag across the pound, impressive sight, 6 tankers and a full squadron of F-4s. My point here is that this is anecdotal evidence. And a boomer today can only provide anecdotal evidence also. Fuel/cargo loads may be the result of MAJOCM policy, bickering lack of coordination or many things.

The bottom line here is a tanker, or any airplane, can only lift so many pounds. The tanker does not care if those pounds are fuel or cargo or troops. This only indicates how far you fly before you have to land, unless you are refueled enroute by another tanker.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8698 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7164 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
The bottom line here is a tanker, or any airplane, can only lift so many pounds. The tanker does not care if those pounds are fuel or cargo or troops. This only indicates how far you fly before you have to land, unless you are refueled enroute by another tanker.

Granted we need tankers. What about the need for more lift? How acute is this need? Do they need a bunch of 747Fs? It seems the new 748F might be fairly good at military tasks.

Or, are they happy securing roughtly 20 to 50 private 747s for gear and DC-10s for troops?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7109 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 20):
Granted we need tankers. What about the need for more lift? How acute is this need? Do they need a bunch of 747Fs? It seems the new 748F might be fairly good at military tasks.

The USAF has said their # 1 need right now is a new tanker. Airlift is being taken care of because the C-17A is still in production, and additional USAF C-17 orders could be made next year, with Congresses blessings. The B-747F has always made military cargo runs under contract, and is a good strong airlifer. The USAF has never been interested in buying B-747F (they were offered in the early 1990s in place of the C-17).

As long as contract air and airlift is available, the USAF is okay with airlift. They cannot contract out for air refueling, on the scale the US needs because their are no contractors available.

Just buy the KC-767A and let's get this over.


User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7068 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The B-747F has always made military cargo runs under contract, and is a good strong airlifer. The USAF has never been interested in buying B-747F (they were offered in the early 1990s in place of the C-17).

As long as contract air and airlift is available, the USAF is okay with airlift. They cannot contract out for air refueling, on the scale the US needs because their are no contractors available.

Isn't there a lot of $ & weight in the tanker fuel systems such that cargo ops are penalized unless there is a reason for the tanker to be there. A ferry flight makes sense, flying cargo without using the tanker capability doesn't make the best use of the resourse.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6915 times:

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 22):
Isn't there a lot of $ & weight in the tanker fuel systems such that cargo ops are penalized unless there is a reason for the tanker to be there. A ferry flight makes sense, flying cargo without using the tanker capability doesn't make the best use of the resourse.

Yes, there is. The original SAC KC-135A fresh from the Boeing factory in 1962 had a basic operating weight of 98,500lbs (which eventuall grew to around 105,650lbs in the late 1960s). For a fresh MATS C-135A delivered the very same day, the basic operating weight was 90,000lbs.

The C-135A did not have the air refueling boom, air refueling pumps (they used smaller override pumps in their body tanks), no upper deck fuel tank, one less cell in the foreward body fuel tank, less fuel plumbing, no boom pod, and associated electronics, avionics, and electrical equipment, and a few less hydraulic lines. The C-135A did have a heavier metal cargo floor where the KC-135A used lighter 3/8" plywood for a cargo floor.

There were some C-135As that started down the production line as KC-135A production numbers, but reduced to the C-135 configueration. They had most of the refueling equipment, except the boom pod electronics and boom. These airplanes were called "falseies". These airplanes weighed in around 95,000lbs. Most of these later became RC-135s or WC-135s.

So, yes, there is a cargo weight carrying penality when a tanker is used to carry cargo, compared to a pure airlifter.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6888 times:

I know this will sound like a silly question...

But why not just reconfigure a C-17 for mid-air refuelling? I mean that thing's HUGE and could carry loads of fuel... it has plenty of thrust to spare and has long-range performance.

That sounds better than both the 767 or A-330


Andrea Kent


25 BigJKU : Because the amount of fuel carried is not the issue. The issue is the number of airframes you can get into the air and the efficiency with which you
26 Keesje : I think since it became clear the KC-30 is a little better at everything then the KC-767 a wild kind of dancing can be seen on the other side of the p
27 BigJKU : Again, except for being 30 million dollars more expensive and being considerably bigger...points which you refuse to address. Last price I saw for th
28 Post contains links and images Keesje : The C-141 spend 30 years serving as a strategic transport. The A400m has a wider cabin and the C-141 and more range then the C-17. It can carry e.g.
29 DL021 : Well, let's not be that harsh. It's an idea worth exploring. I'd bet it's impractical due to cost reasons. It's not a bad idea on the outset. The iss
30 Post contains images MDorBust : And how many C-141's are in service now? .....oh yeah.... So it can carry 1/3 of a tank across the Atlantic? That's strategic airlift for you? Yes, w
31 Post contains images DEVILFISH : Remind us again when EADS finally have it out of the production line, flying and certified, with all the kinks ironed out!
32 Halls120 : In case you haven't figured this out yet, Keesje refuses to address points he cannot spin to his advantage. Like the fact that we can buy more KC-767
33 Keesje : Pls give me any price info you have (with source).
34 KC135TopBoom : Clear to who? Italy? Japan? The USAF? Remember, the new tanker requirements are set by the customer, not the manufactuer. If the USAF wants a tanker
35 Post contains images AirSpare : Hi Boom, thanks for the info on the old A models. These are such an historic part of our Air Force and it always fun to read back in the day accounts
36 Halls120 : Well, Keesje? The tanker force, IMO, shouldn't be looked at as a strategic cargo carrying asset. The fact it can carry dry cargo is a bonus. Remember
37 Post contains links and images Keesje : The KC-30 wasn´t launched / an option then. I won´t dare to ask Italy & Japan now knowing how the project is progressing. About the USAF: they inde
38 XT6Wagon : I think you missed the part that currently almost all missions are
39 Post contains links Halls120 : OK, now it is sourced. Going to address the issue, or run away? http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...tent/feb2007/db20070221_325213.htm
40 Keesje : You´ve bad luck, I actually checked out this source. The opinion ventilated about the EADS offer and european aerospace in general leaves little roo
41 MDorBust : Uh, Keesje... C-17 and C-103J both have glass cockpits. They both also happen to use composites in construction. C-17 also happens to be FBW in case
42 Post contains links and images Keesje : The C-17 technology dates back to the eighties, disgarding any YC-15 heritage.. For the C130J some technology is only 10 yrs old, some technology >50
43 AirSpare : No, I was responding to the posts that said that we needed more booms in the air. If the tanker fleet is not refueling, what do we need them for? So
44 BigJKU : The USAF is short of heavy airlift they are plenty of trash haulers (I.E. general cargo haulers), which is pretty much what a KC-30 or KC-767 would b
45 Halls120 : Spin, spin, spin. You're pretty good at it, I'll grant you that. First you criticize the objectivity of the article - without providing the basis for
46 Post contains images AirSpare : No of course not. This is not what I said. This is why the C-5 is the only real strategic airlifter we have. (If you give me a few glasses of Bourbon
47 Halls120 : How was it a cheap shot?
48 XT6Wagon : next to no time at all the way that the law/contracts are worded. People really miss that its better for the USAF if they need cargo lift and it can
49 BigJKU : No, not at all. You could not be more wrong. The driving force behind the purchase of larger tankers was the policy of SAC to maintain at times of hi
50 DEVILFISH : Well, as soon as Raytheon/EADS' protest is resolved, they'll have the proper transport. Isn't this what the C-27J Spartan supposed to do?
51 KC135TopBoom : Old news. That situation is done and over with, and has nothing to do with the current KC-X compitition. Well, since this is July 2007, I guess I was
52 Blackbird : This totally sucks. The KC-767 won the competition unfair and square. Politicians went to all sorts of machinations to make sure it won, and the KC-30
53 KC135TopBoom : The USAF has not selected a winning airplane, yet. I believe that will happen in October and a contract awarded then.
54 Checksixx : I'm guessing he's never offloaded in a wartime situation then...hell when we offloaded during Southern Watch missions, we repeatedly had to turn jets
55 KC135TopBoom : No, it will not lead them to crash. But, in the middle east, a KC-135R typoicly carries a 175,000lb fuel load, the KC-135E about a 165,000lb fuel loa
56 Post contains links AirSpare : Perhaps it would be more fair to note some basic specs. Maybe not quite so fair to the 767. KC-30 --------- 767 --------------- 135 (Ref) Max Fuel 300
57 Checksixx : The last time I checked and the way it was worded, if you offload ALL of your fuel...you have none left. I'm not sure what else you could run the eng
58 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think it is strange to see the tanker should not able to transport goods & people because the KC-135 never did it. Question; why wasn´t the KC-135
59 BigJKU : Great, please answer the following question on how this capability will be employed and then we can declare it a highly important operational ability
60 Playloud : Was there not enough runway to carry a full fuel load, or was it a decision to carry less than a full load?
61 BigJKU : I would imagine it is just more efficient to go at that weight. Taking off at a higher weight would probably burn enough fuel to make it not worth it
62 Post contains links Keesje : Uhmm most goods / troops for any militairy operation? Freeing up the expensive C-17 for what they are made for? http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.
63 Post contains images Playloud : Looking at that chart, I am somewhat confused. Forgive my ignorance, but perhaps somebody could explain this to me. The chart shows that the KC-767 h
64 AirSpare : My flights were always, always packed. After we launched, the second we were wheels up, people dove for any flat spot to sleep. On top of pallets, un
65 AirSpare : Remember, Boeing and N-G/EADS are right in the middle of an incredibly large contract, many billions of dollars. Neither team will compromise their p
66 BigJKU : Oh I agree, but they are not doing this on a daily or even weekly basis for the most part. They deploy, then they rotate back. Certainly there is use
67 AirSpare : Ok, I can't convince you, the RFP and the SRD doesn't have any inputs that are of value. Here are some quotes from General McNabb, the CC of AMC, from
68 Blackbird : I think to be honestly the 777-200LR was the best choice out of all of them... too bad we blew it and will have some non-American plane. Will Northrop
69 Post contains links Keesje : You did hyjack the thread, you corrected me & added good content / experience. My no cargo on tankers was more based on comments made earlier that ta
70 XT6Wagon : This is laughable. You do know the KC30 still has a FAR larger wingspan and is a whole hell of alot longer thus taking up far more area when parked..
71 Checksixx : Also keep in mind the high temperature's in the current AOR. Used to watch KC-10's and 135's pick up pax and cargo all the time at Langley.
72 Keesje : Dutch KDC-10's are used so intensively for relief / cargo / people transport they are getting a third and possibly a fourth without refuelling booms.
73 KC135TopBoom : Not really, in the KC-135, about 300 US gallons of fuel in each main wing tank cannot be transferred to receivers. This fuel can only be burned by th
74 KC135TopBoom : What does that have to do with the USAF KC-X program?
75 Blackbird : Does the Northrop KC-30 proposal plan to modify in any-way the FBW software? Andrea Kent
76 Keesje : Of the KC-30 / A330 there exists a CFM56 engined variant, the A340. Recently LH reported the A330 was more fuel efficient then their A340-300s. Those
77 KC135TopBoom : The A-340 is also a lot heavier than the KC-135. The KC-135R has a cruise fuel burn of about 8000-10000lbs per hour. The KC-10 burns about 21000-2400
78 Checksixx : Fine...either way...you win. I was just trying to make a point, I don't know why you need to be all hung up about it.
79 Playloud : Man, I had no idea the KC-135R was so much more efficient than the KC-767. If I may ask, how often does a refueling plane have to travel 3500nm to 40
80 Moose135 : Not to speak for TopBoom, but I don't think this really means traveling 4000nm to offload fuel, but rather something like a fighter drag from CONUS t
81 KC135TopBoom : Boeing is correct, the runway critical field lenght for the KC-135 requires longer runways than the KC-767 (or KC-30). But being able to be based clo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Cargo / Passenger Capasity Of New Tanker KC-X
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing VP Of Tanker Programs Csan Interview posted Wed May 30 2007 19:39:48 by 102IAHexpress
KC-135 Tanker Wing posted Sat Jan 6 2007 01:17:13 by Blackbird
KC-X Air Tanker Information Request posted Tue Dec 12 2006 19:48:06 by TropicBird
Eads Confident On Share Of US Air Tanker Deal posted Mon Sep 18 2006 12:12:54 by Columba
KC-X Tanker Project Approved posted Sun Jul 9 2006 22:04:24 by 747400sp
Rand Tanker Study Says Buy New Frames posted Wed Mar 8 2006 04:10:57 by Echster
Why It Took 40's Years For A New Class Of Carrier posted Tue Feb 21 2006 00:34:47 by 747400sp
Tanker/Transport Pilots-Level Of Risk? posted Wed Nov 9 2005 22:30:26 by Ua752
New Hampshire ANG KC-135 Question posted Mon Oct 10 2005 04:44:01 by ChrisNH
KC-135A, A Couple Of Questions posted Thu Sep 15 2005 22:23:36 by Tarantine

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format